Vancouver Infill & Lowrise Updates Discussion

[officedweller]

Architectural style aside, the biggest issue that seems to arise with redevelopment is the loss of older buildings with cheap rent.
A couple of arterial stretches that come to mind that have been redeveloped with multistorey mixed use developments are The Heights in Burnaby (Hastings St.) and Marine Drive in North Vancouver.
The Heights seems to be quite successful.
I suppose that vanmcouver's higher development costs and consequential rent could hinder success.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Architectural style aside, the biggest issue that seems to arise with redevelopment is the loss of older buildings with cheap rent.
A couple of arterial stretches that come to mind that have been redeveloped with multistorey mixed use developments are The Heights in Burnaby (Hastings St.) and Marine Drive in North Vancouver.
The Heights seems to be quite successful.
I suppose that vanmcouver's higher development costs and consequential rent could hinder success.

Most of the time (on our lots, anyway) the existing tenants can't pay the high rents for the older building, so folks redevelop to get more tenants per lot to pay for itself.

We find usually providing smaller square foot CRU's, new, leads to a larger , healthier variety of tenants and easier to lease after you get that 1 key large CRU tenant signed on. CRU's are leased on a square foot basis, so smaller the better.

[GenWhy?]

I'm not aware of many new mid-rise mixed-use buildings having a no-go on the retail success. Mind you also that lots of rules have changed for retail and zoning for new developments over the last 5 years.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Most of the time (on our lots, anyway) the existing tenants can't pay the high rents for the older building, so folks redevelop to get more tenants per lot to pay for itself.

We find usually providing smaller square foot CRU's, new, leads to a larger , healthier variety of tenants

Could you show me an example? Because one of the big issues with these generic cru is that they attract a tiny range of tenants, either because the rents are too high or the facade is not appropriate.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by logan5

Could you show me an example? Because one of the big issues with these generic cru is that they attract a tiny range of tenants, either because the rents are too high or the facade is not appropriate.

You don't really even have to see a development to know whats going in the CRU's

A dental hygiene office
A bank
A Tim's

Anything left over might get taken by something more interesting.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logan5

Could you show me an example? Because one of the big issues with these generic cru is that they attract a tiny range of tenants, either because the rents are too high or the facade is not appropriate.

Unfair provincial tax category of "best use" results in owners redeveloping and renting less square feet costs less money than a larger space. You usually see "standard" occupants in infill because the buildings are new, easy to fit, or are designed in-mind with the largest "key" tenant (bank, grocer). A new empty CRU attracts "generic" tenants because it's a good strategic move, they will sign a lease, or they are moving locations. Banks are typical in this.

There is unfortunately no by-law that restricts "generic". If it's the aesthetics of an infill building's facade, then that's understandable.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Most of the time (on our lots, anyway) the existing tenants can't pay the high rents for the older building, so folks redevelop to get more tenants per lot to pay for itself.

We find usually providing smaller square foot CRU's, new, leads to a larger , healthier variety of tenants and easier to lease after you get that 1 key large CRU tenant signed on. CRU's are leased on a square foot basis, so smaller the better.

Yeah, that makes sense and explains the preponderance of smaller retail units (as well as spaces broken up by elevator cores and exit stairwells), especially if there are already anchors like a drug store or grocery store in the neighbourhood.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logan5

Could you show me an example? Because one of the big issues with these generic cru is that they attract a tiny range of tenants, either because the rents are too high or the facade is not appropriate.

I might have mis-read the example you were asking for, btw. If the example was for a building with a variety of tenants, I can't answer that due to being too subjective, I feel. Though I would caution when looking at a variety of new developments over the last 10 years - or even 3 years! - as rules change year by year making things that many hate not being allowed anymore. I'll go through the update C-2 Schedules to see if they were tightened up a bit at all on this front, but I know we got hit with some new restrictions that my Client and key tenant hated but I loved, from a community urban development POV.

[GenWhy?]

"The Spot" on Cambie and 12th is a prime example of poor planning. That and the Shoppers on Cambie which is the worst offender of the old rules.

[officedweller]

There are 4 units at The Spot, so I think that's fine, as it allows for a couple of anchor stores.
Shoppers is lousy just because of the blocked off windows.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by logan5

Cambie Village is a great amenity for the surrounding neighbourhood, but it is only 3 blocks long, so it has a limited number of small retail units with colourful storefronts. This abomination is the opposite of that. The blank walls that come with these types of developments are urban blight and make the neighbourhood less walkable. A few more of these mixed use buildings will destroy the character of Cambie Village.

I agree. I lived on 18th and Heather, and loved the lived-in vibe of Cambie Village, but this is the price of progress, unfortunately. The Cambie Village we know and love was never going to survive having a 2 billion dollar skytrain underneath it as land prices have skyrocketed due to the addition. If it's any consolation, we probably won't have to stare at those blank walls for too long. I'm sure another development with a similar height is on the books right next to it.

[GenWhy?]

Cool laneway infill: something that doesn't require a subscription for everyone. I'm biased but my fav is MA+HG's and Smallworks

[cov]

Originally Posted by logan5

Cambie Village is a great amenity for the surrounding neighbourhood, but it is only 3 blocks long, so it has a limited number of small retail units with colourful storefronts. This abomination is the opposite of that. The blank walls that come with these types of developments are urban blight and make the neighbourhood less walkable. A few more of these mixed use buildings will destroy the character of Cambie Village.

The new development includes ground-floor retail. Am I missing something?

[officedweller]

For that particular project above, it's the replacement of old retail (cheap rent) with new retail (expensive rent) rather than the form of retail (architectural character aside)

[cov]

New storefronts could potentially charge more rent, but may never the less bring thriving retail spaces to the neighborhood much like The Spot on Cambie, and Ellsworth on Main. Both developments feature glass storefronts, as do tons of Yaletown and UBC neighborhoods. So I'm really confused why this development, in particular, is "urban blight".

Originally Posted by logan5

This abomination is the opposite of that. The blank walls that come with these types of developments are urban blight and make the neighbourhood less walkable.

Office space also brings more day time traffic, so this can only bring better business for nearby retail. Any reason why this will be less walkable than Yaletown or wesbrook Village? Or why small businesses like Como taperia can thrive on main but Cambie is different?

[logan5]

Originally Posted by cov

New storefronts could potentially charge more rent, but may never the less bring thriving retail spaces to the neighborhood much like The Spot on Cambie, and Ellsworth on Main. Both developments feature glass storefronts, as do tons of Yaletown and UBC neighborhoods. So I'm really confused why this development, in particular, is "urban blight".



Office space also brings more day time traffic, so this can only bring better business for nearby retail. Any reason why this will be less walkable than Yaletown or wesbrook Village? Or why small businesses like Como taperia can thrive on main but Cambie is different?

A certain number of generic retail units can be absorbed into an existing character neighbourhood, but if you get too many, you will end up with dead zones. Main Street, between 17th and 19th is a perfect example. Main Street is busting for blocks and blocks, except for the blocks that are dominated by generic retail units. And these units are over 30 years old now, so it's not like they would be any more expensive than other retail units along Main. Most businesses simply don't want to be there because of how expressionless they are. That's why you see restaurants that are willing to go into the rough areas to get a character space.

Now have a look at a 2 block stretch of Dawson Street in Brentwood. This is suppose to be the high street for the neighbourhood, which is fairly dense, but doesn't attract a wide range of businesses at all. There are 2 dental clinics, a medical clinic, tanning studio, a physio clinic, a salon, and so on. It's a dead zone. Central Broadway is another example. A very mature neighbourhood with lots of renters (which really drives thriving neighbourhoods like Mt. Pleasant), and good density, yet you don't have a lot of people on the streets after office hours, because there isn't the right type of retail units that allow the business to customize the facade.

https://earth.google.com/web/@49.2645138...a=IhoKFi1IRWNLSW1DUTZFX2ZtLWlaXzZ1NWcQAg

https://earth.google.com/web/@49.2634290...a=IhoKFkRSZVFsQXF4SEpSeWRsVWF3WWZja2cQAg

[logan5]

As for Wesbrook Village, it's still not a place you would see very many people after hours, but at least there was more effort put into the overall design. There is a good variety of materials and colours in the surrounding buildings, and the design treatment of the sidewalks and roadway are of a higher grade than normal. Being on the West Side and in UBC, the standards are much higher than usual. Certainly much better than the Cambie development that brings tacky spandrel glass into the pedestrian realm. And yes, that is urban blight.

[officedweller]

I think there is a disconnect between what architects want with "clean modern design" and what businesses want with "character".

A restaurant like Tractor may work in a glass and concrete shell, but others wouldn't and many diners don't want to eat in a minimalist setting (think school cafeteria).

Looking at The Heights, many critics would decry the new mixed use buildings as tacky pastiche, but they add character and are occupied.
4365 E Hastings St
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6mze2JQukAjotVXa6

Also see Dubh Linn Gate pub that added stone cladding to the modern glass and brick exterior of the Central office building on Main St.
BC-99A
https://maps.app.goo.gl/FZbPUksyRV318RcW8

I think I recall that in Vancouver, building height restrictions on arterials resulted in claustrophobic low-ceiling'd retail spaces (ie Broadway where Lumiere used to be)

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logan5

A certain number of generic retail units can be absorbed into an existing character neighbourhood, but if you get too many, you will end up with dead zones. Main Street, between 17th and 19th is a perfect example. Main Street is busting for blocks and blocks, except for the blocks that are dominated by generic retail units. And these units are over 30 years old now, so it's not like they would be any more expensive than other retail units along Main. Most businesses simply don't want to be there because of how expressionless they are. That's why you see restaurants that are willing to go into the rough areas to get a character space.

Now have a look at a 2 block stretch of Dawson Street in Brentwood. This is suppose to be the high street for the neighbourhood, which is fairly dense, but doesn't attract a wide range of businesses at all. There are 2 dental clinics, a medical clinic, tanning studio, a physio clinic, a salon, and so on. It's a dead zone. Central Broadway is another example. A very mature neighbourhood with lots of renters (which really drives thriving neighbourhoods like Mt. Pleasant), and good density, yet you don't have a lot of people on the streets after office hours, because there isn't the right type of retail units that allow the business to customize the facade.

https://earth.google.com/web/@49.2645138...a=IhoKFi1IRWNLSW1DUTZFX2ZtLWlaXzZ1NWcQAg

https://earth.google.com/web/@49.2634290...a=IhoKFkRSZVFsQXF4SEpSeWRsVWF3WWZja2cQAg

So I think what you're describing is commercial or retail's basic zoning allowances for businesses. "Retail" in the standard shopping street C-2 sense, allows local serving services which include "generic" examples you mentioned. Nothing is stopping "interesting" things opening up.

Or I think maybe you're also describing your preference of facade treatment. I don't think facades determine the types of businesses that open up as much as you think they do.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think there is a disconnect between what architects want with "clean modern design" and what businesses want with "character".

A restaurant like Tractor may work in a glass and concrete shell, but others wouldn't and many diners don't want to eat in a minimalist setting (think school cafeteria).

Looking at The Heights, many critics would decry the new mixed use buildings as tacky pastiche, but they add character and are occupied.
4365 E Hastings St
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6mze2JQukAjotVXa6

Also see Dubh Linn Gate pub that added stone cladding to the modern glass and brick exterior of the Central office building on Main St.
BC-99A
https://maps.app.goo.gl/FZbPUksyRV318RcW8

I think I recall that in Vancouver, building height restrictions on arterials resulted in claustrophobic low-ceiling'd retail spaces (ie Broadway where Lumiere used to be)

Commercial height restrictions from outdated District Schedules, YES. This is fixed in rezoning, which many don't go through, but it's also fixed dramatically in the recent C-2 changes before Council now.